Mr. Speaker, Alberta—by far the largest greenhouse gas emitter with 71 metric tonnes per inhabitant, compared to 12.6 tonnes in Quebec—has the financial resources to assume its responsibilities with regard to the Kyoto targets.

Does the Minister of Environment not believe that it is only fair for Alberta—which is in an exceptional financial situation because of its oil and gas activity—to pay for the environmental damages caused by its own oil development?

Mr. Speaker, indeed, there is a lot to be done in Alberta. We will work together with Albertans and the Alberta government, not only to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in that province, but also to further strengthen the Alberta economy from which Albertans and all Canadians, including Quebeckers, benefit.

Mr. Speaker, Alberta's tax rate is very low, there is no sales tax and the province no longer has any debt. This enviable situation is due to the enormous profits from oil and gas development.

How can the Minister of the Environment today ask Quebec to pay 25% of the necessary costs to achieve the Kyoto objectives, when it is Alberta that has profited from oil and gas development? Would a territorial approach not be more equitable than a sectorial approach?

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member does not want to give Albertans the impression that a territorial approach should be used when it comes to oil, a resource that benefits all Canadians. Recently we were able to vote in favour of equalization, including for the Government of Quebec, in part because of Canada's resources, in particular Alberta oil.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will not defend his attacks on rights here in the House and the Prime Minister cannot defend corruption in his own party in the House. It is no wonder Canadians are fed up.

The NDP has been speaking out for a long time against the 1996 employment insurance reform, which has caused serious problems for seasonal workers.

Will the Prime Minister use the budget as an opportunity to reform EI and correct the seasonal gap problem affecting these workers?

Mr. Speaker, as far as the body of measures relating to employment insurance is concerned, the hon. member is well aware that we are currently looking at the various proposals made by the House committee or the Liberal caucus task force. We hope to make adjustments to certain EI measures, for seasonal workers in particular. We hope to be in a position to reach some decisions shortly.

Mr. Speaker, more words and more promises that have been broken time and time again. Meanwhile, two-thirds of the workers paying into the program are not able to get benefits when they need them and their families are facing hardship. That is the attitude of the government.

I would like to ask the Minister of Social Development about child care. As he likely knows, Australia is in the forefront of big box child care. Twenty percent of its child care is owned by one company. The problem is that quality suffers as a result.

Will the minister reassure Canadian families and clearly state that in Canada new child care money will go only to non profit centres--

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House before, the challenge in front of us is to create a system of early learning and child care in every province and in every territory across the country. The challenge is to go from where we are now, where we do not have a system, to where we do create a system. At this stage in Canada, delivery is largely not for profit but there is also for profit. We have to focus on quality across the country in order to develop this system.

Mr. Speaker, on May 22, 2002, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said the following: “If there was some wrong in the administration of the program and people received money they should not have received they will be obliged to pay it back.” Here we are in 2005, three years later, and not one cent has been paid back to the taxpayers.

When does the Prime Minister expect the guilty parties to start paying this money back?

Mr. Speaker, let us review some of the progress over the last year on this issue. First of all, the government and the Prime Minister have acted decisively by establishing the Gomery commission. We received the advice of our special counsel on financial recovery and will soon be moving decisively to act in this area. We have introduced whistleblower legislation. Treasury Board is moving forward to strengthen the Financial Administration Act and to change the governance of crown corporations.

We are addressing the issues raised by the Auditor General. We are moving aggressively and constructively to make a real difference and defending taxpayers' interests as a government. Those members cannot handle that so all they want to do is talk about Gomery.

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. What the government has not done is pay back taxpayers the dollars that it has withdrawn. That is the point.

Justice Gomery is making public the corruption that was at the heart of the sponsorship program. He is pointing out that the Liberals were in bed with dirty money. On Friday Jean Carle himself said that this was money laundering.

When will the Prime Minister's Liberal Party pay back taxpayers the money that it ripped off?

Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery has not completed his report. Furthermore, we have established the new Comptroller General's function. We now also have a new independent ethics counsellor and new disclosure policies on travel and expenses. The Department of Public Works and Government Services has a new ethics and integrity package that has been recognized by the Conference Board of Canada as the best practice model for both the private and public sector.

The government is demonstrating respect for taxpayers. We are doing the right thing on behalf of Canadians. That party does not have any new ideas and does not want to talk about the positive aspects of what we are doing so it is focusing on Gomery.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Liberal Party is still there. That is the biggest problem of all.

Today in the sponsorship inquiry we found out that Jacques Corriveau got a huge payback for not insisting that he get paid for work he did for the Liberal Party. He got millions of dollars in subcontracts through sponsorship money. Then Corriveau turned around and gave $47,000 back to Mr. Chrétien and the Liberal Party, $6,000 of which was not declared on Mr. Chrétien's election return. The transport minister said that dirty money will be repaid.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee--